FIA Guide to the UK Fire Safety Industry Passive Fire Protection Feature
that’s universally accepted. When we see
‘shock horror’-style headlines which
state that somebody burned something
and it produced toxic smoke, it’s
meaningless without an agreed scenario
to measure it, regulate it or otherwise
take it forward.
The European Association for Passive
Fire Protection (EAPFP) was formed in
1988 to act as a European voice on
behalf of national associations
representing manufacturers, contractors
and other institutions involved in
passive fire protection (including areas
such as passive fire protection
applications, fire doors, fire stopping
and fire-resisting ducts and dampers).
The EAPFP has aligned interests with
Fire Safe Europe (FSEU) – a body
lobbying for greater fire safety in Europe
– in a number of areas, among them the
Construction Products Regulation
(CPR) and standardisation activities in
the European Committee for
Standardisation (CEN) and the
European Organisation for Technical
Assessment (EOTA).
The EAPFP and FSEU believe that
the construction sector is more open to
address smoke toxicity and that
developing a European system for
testing and classification of the smoke
toxicity of building products may be a
significant improvement for fire safety.
In essence, it would ensure that end
users have the appropriate information
to make informed choices on which
products to use and where to use them,
boost the development of products
which are less toxic when burned and
allow regulators to decide on how to
regulate for toxicity.
Such a classification system would
need to fulfil two objectives. First, it
must ensure the safe escape of all
occupants and, second, those occupants’
safety in protected zones such as refuges.
A further objective – that of protecting
firefighters – is also recognised, but the
wide availability of breathing apparatus
may make this less of a priority.
In addition, any testing and
classification system would have to
address lethality versus incapacitation,
with incapacitation a more prudent
measure as it often leads to death. Also
due some consideration are the short-term
effects (ie asphyxia and irritation)
as opposed to the long-term ones, such
as the build-up of products in the body.
For simplification, the current proposal
is to consider only short-term effects.
Finally, unlike the situation with
reaction to fire and fire resistance, when
considering toxicity we need to look at
the type of fire. For instance, whether or
not it’s well-ventilated. This is because
the products of combustion vary
enormously by both quantity and type
depending on the supply of air.
Robust classification
Any proposed system must be
underpinned by robust testing and
classification methods. Several test
methods are already being considered,
including the steady-state tube furnace,
fire propagation apparatus, the
controlled atmosphere cone calorimeter,
the smoke density chamber and the
static tube furnace. The next task is to
develop the objectives and test methods
using a set of fire scenarios and provide
a methodology for the testing and
classification of toxicity when it comes
to building products.
The EAPFP has not yet formally
decided whether it will join the FSEU in
its call for regulation for toxicity testing
and classification, but agrees that the
idea is worth discussion and further
development. The EAPFP is ready and
willing to contribute to the debate.
The aforementioned CPR is the key
European legislation for fire safety in
buildings. Standardisation is central to
the CPR and Europe has provided
outstanding examples of fire safety
standards to the rest of the world
through the work of CEN and the
EOTA. Through the provision of
harmonised technical specifications and
CE marking, the CPR has provided
better information for end users and
more transparency about products and
their fire performance. With its
associated European classes for both
reaction to fire and fire resistance, it has
significantly removed barriers to trade.
However, in the last year or so,
progress through standardisation – at
least in CEN – has almost stopped. Due
to legal difficulties following the James
Elliott case in which the status of
harmonised technical specifications in
European Union aw was disputed, the
production of harmonised technical
specifications has ground to a halt. •
Niall Rowan is President of the
European Association for Passive Fire
Protection and Technical and
Regulatory Affairs Officer at the
Association for Specialist Fire
Protection (www.eapfp.com)
*This an abridged version of an article
that appeared in the May 2021 edition of
Fire Safety Matters (‘Testing times for
Europe’, pp50-52)
43
/(www.eapfp.com)
